|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2005 10:21:02 PM · #501 |
| If the Bush administration condones torturous interrogations and keeps on detaining everyday citizens of other countries without due process they will be playing right into the hands of the terrorists and cause their ranks to swell. |
|
|
|
10/26/2005 10:44:26 PM · #502 |
Why is a contemporaneous first-person account of events insufficient "proof" to establish what's going on, but a 2000 year-old second-hand report of the experiences of a blind guy who "hears voices" telling him to do something must be accepted as Absolute Truth.
I sense a double-standard.
By the way, we had a woman out here a few days ago "hearing voices" too -- told her to throw her three kids into the Bay. Funny how no one seems to think it's anything other than her going off her medications ... |
|
|
|
10/26/2005 11:13:15 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Where are the charges against the people being held in Gitmo, Abu or any of the other US run prison overseas that shows that the government believes them to be terrorists? |
I don't know. Where is the evidence backing up a LOT of the claims that are made in this thread and others? I ask, but do not receive. I ask again, and am told that it is "clear to anyone with a brain".
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Do they have any evidence? I doubt it very much cause if they did all of the current criticisms from countries and organizations around the world would have died down by now, but instead, they are growing louder and louder. |
So you maintain that the Bush administration is holding folks that they just picked up on the street with NO credible reason for detention? Even that poor man who was gunned down in the London underground showed SOME reason for the police to act. They were WRONG, but in their minds they had good REASON for their actions just the same. I'm absolutely sure that the administration HAD evidence before detaining the folks they did.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The interrogation techniques that have been used up to now by military intelligence and the CIA have used torture. |
You SAY it as though it were routine and widespread. While I would not doubt that on occasion actions crossed the line, but I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to state the torture is / was a common occurrence.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to gather information or question detainees if they have real evidence that they are terrorists,... |
Yes, they are. Re-read the posts from Riponlady
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
... but the reason why you have so many people now in the Middle East against the United States is because they have perpetrated devasting actions against ordinary citizens that have come from high ranking officials in the Bush administration and Pentagon. |
I disagree. I believe that the reason is that they despise our societal mores, our affluence, our freedoms. Besides, if what you say is true, then why did they attack the WTC? There was no military presence there. Only civilians, many, if not most of whom were Democrats who were sympathetic to their cause.
No, if they believe that actions of torture were authorized or sanctioned by high ranking officials in the Bush administration and the Pentagon, I think that it's because they were once deeply imbedded in a regime where torture WAS conducted under the eye of their President, so do not find it beyond belief that a President WOULD be involved in such, and also because they are prone to believe what Al Jazeera and the American Mass Media say on a daily basis. And we both know that the media ( and many posters ) say what they think will increase readership, even if they have to twist and slant the truth, or lie outright, to convince folks to read what they have to say. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:14:37 AM · #504 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
... but the reason why you have so many people now in the Middle East against the United States is because they have perpetrated devasting actions against ordinary citizens that have come from high ranking officials in the Bush administration and Pentagon. |
I disagree. I believe that the reason is that they despise our societal mores, our affluence, our freedoms. Besides, if what you say is true, then why did they attack the WTC? There was no military presence there. Only civilians, many, if not most of whom were Democrats who were sympathetic to their cause.
No, if they believe that actions of torture were authorized or sanctioned by high ranking officials in the Bush administration and the Pentagon, I think that it's because they were once deeply imbedded in a regime where torture WAS conducted under the eye of their President, so do not find it beyond belief that a President WOULD be involved in such, and also because they are prone to believe what Al Jazeera and the American Mass Media say on a daily basis. And we both know that the media ( and many posters ) say what they think will increase readership, even if they have to twist and slant the truth, or lie outright, to convince folks to read what they have to say. |
If they despise our freedoms (and where is your proof of this?) then why would you want to promote democracy there? Doesn't make sense to me.
If a foreign president, such as Bush, comes in and overthrows a murderous, torturous dictator like Sadaam Hussein (which I would not argue with) to help the people there establish security and a better life, then why on earth would the Iraqi people not believe that it was for their own good if not for the fact of the atrocities that are occurring at the hands of the Americans?
They attacked the WTC because, for one, it was a symbol of American greed and avarice. Because they could make the biggest statement that would get recognized world over that the US was not invinceable. Because of the support of the American government for years of Israel; for the stationing of military bases near Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia; for the support by American governments (dems and repubs) of dictators in the mideast that were jailing, torturing and killing their own people, such as the Shah of Iran, SADAAM HUSSEIN, the Saudi Royal family, etc. There are many reasons, and I don't have all of them at the top of my head.
Further more, terrorists before the Iraqi war were much fewer in number and after the WTC attack in 2001 we had a lot more support from other countries, but Bush has pissed that all away.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:26:23 AM · #505 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why is a contemporaneous first-person account of events insufficient "proof" to establish what's going on, but a 2000 year-old second-hand report of the experiences of a blind guy who "hears voices" telling him to do something must be accepted as Absolute Truth.
I sense a double-standard.
By the way, we had a woman out here a few days ago "hearing voices" too -- told her to throw her three kids into the Bay. Funny how no one seems to think it's anything other than her going off her medications ... |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:51:19 AM · #506 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I am sickened by you RonB. What twisted parallel universe do you live in where the bible is documented fact but reports on the ground from people down in it you won't trust? |
I live in the twisted universe where someone is permitted to say that I am "full of shit" without criticism, then openly question what "Jesus would say about people being treated in this way", then revile the one who provides the documentation showing exactly what Jesus would say as living in a twisted parallel universe.
For the record, I give greater credibility to scripture because to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proven that it contains false statements wheras we already know that General ( now Colonel Karpinski ) violated her sworn duty to uphold the Geneva Conventions and in so doing has damaged her credibility. Some of what she offers is uncorroborated, and some of what she offers completely undermines her contentions. For example, at one point the interview goes like this:
AMY GOODMAN: Did you take Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on a tour of Abu Ghraib?
JANIS KARPINSKI: I did.
AMY GOODMAN: Did you show him how prisoners are held, how they are hung, how they are tied with ropes to metal bars in the ceiling?
JANIS KARPINSKI: No.
The anti-Bush folks maintain that knowledge went all the way to the top, but clearly Rumsfeld didn't see it on this visit.
Another portion of the interview:
AMY GOODMAN: No soldier had ever come to you?
JANIS KARPINSKI: No. And no prisoner. As I said in all of the facilities, I walked through where the cells were. I spoke to the M.P.s. I spoke to the Iraqi guards that were working in some of the facilities. They wanted to be paid more than anything else, because they hadn’t been paid. But there were no complaints about torture, abuse, dragging prisoners around, taking their clothes away. Nothing at all.
So even though SHE was there, and in charge of the prison, SHE had no knowledge of torture, abuse, etc. Yet we are to believe that Rumsfeld DID?
Yet we are to believe the rest of her story. About a photograph of a hand-written note by Rumsfeld, himself, saying ""Make sure this happens" next to a typewritten list of interrogation techniques. Where are these documents?
She says that General Miller said "Treat them like dogs". Did he actually mean that LITERALLY or just figuratively? Who supplied the leashes and collars seen in the abuse photos? The General? I don't think so.
Why did Karpinski suddenly become concerned about the Geneva Conventions only when prisoner "triple-x" showed up? Why not before, when she claims to have looked the other way for many other "ghost detainees"? If Rumsfeld "sent a memorandum specifically about this individual" ( triple-x ), why can no one produce a copy of that document?
These are reasons why I trust the Bible more than I do to Colonel Karpinski.
Addendum: Follow this link (pdf file)to an actual document written by Colonel Pappas related to the handling one of the detainees. Note that the document specifies where the detainee was picked up, why he is being considered for interrogation, what information it is hoped that he will provide, and how the interrogation is to proceed. Note specifically the paragraphs like:
Interrogators will at a maximum throw tables, chairs, invade his personal space and continuously yell at the detainee. Interrogators will not physically touch or harm the detainee, will take all necessary precautions that all thrown objects are clear of the detainee and will not coerce the detainee in any way.
and
Interrogators will take all necessary precautions in conjunction with the MPs to ensure detainee's safety during transport.
and
Interrogators will wait outside the room while detainee is strip searched. Interrogators will watch from a distance while detainee is placed in the segregation cell. Detainee will be put on the adjusted sleep schedule (attached) for 72 hours. Interrogations will be conducted continuously during this 72 hour period. The approaches which will be used during this phase will include, fear up harsh, pride and ego down, silence and loud music. Stress positions will also be used in accordance with CJTF- 7 IROE in order to intensify the approach.
Also, follow this link (pdf file) to the actual "standards" for interrogation, issued by General Sanchez, that itemize all of the techniques and what can NOT be done - to wit:
Interrogators must ensure the safety of security internees, and approaches must in no way endanger them. Interrogators will ensure that security internees are allowed adequate sleep; and that diets provide adequate food and water and cause no adverse medical or cultural effects. Where segregation is necessary. security internees must be monitored for adverse medical or psychological reactions. Should military working dogs be present during interrogations , they will be muzzled and under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety.
Doesn't sound like real "torture" was on the agenda at all.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 00:53:57. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:24:58 AM · #507 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For the record, I give greater credibility to scripture because to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proven that it contains false statements |
And this is where I bow out. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 09:33:42 AM · #508 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to gather information or question detainees if they have real evidence that they are terrorists,... |
Yes, they are. Re-read the posts from Riponlady
|
Excuse me! Where did I say that terrorists should not be interrogated in some way? Of course those people against whom there is documented proof of terrorist action should be questioned - I said it should not involve torture which is very different.
And
Quoting RonB
Addendum: Follow this link (pdf file)to an actual document written by Colonel Pappas related to the handling one of the detainees. Note that the document specifies where the detainee was picked up, why he is being considered for interrogation, what information it is hoped that he will provide, and how the interrogation is to proceed. Note specifically the paragraphs like:
Interrogators will at a maximum throw tables, chairs, invade his personal space and continuously yell at the detainee. Interrogators will not physically touch or harm the detainee, will take all necessary precautions that all thrown objects are clear of the detainee and will not coerce the detainee in any way.
and
Interrogators will take all necessary precautions in conjunction with the MPs to ensure detainee's safety during transport.
and
Interrogators will wait outside the room while detainee is strip searched. Interrogators will watch from a distance while detainee is placed in the segregation cell. Detainee will be put on the adjusted sleep schedule (attached) for 72 hours. Interrogations will be conducted continuously during this 72 hour period. The approaches which will be used during this phase will include, fear up harsh, pride and ego down, silence and loud music. Stress positions will also be used in accordance with CJTF- 7 IROE in order to intensify the approach.
Also, follow this link (pdf file) to the actual "standards" for interrogation, issued by General Sanchez, that itemize all of the techniques and what can NOT be done - to wit:
Interrogators must ensure the safety of security internees, and approaches must in no way endanger them. Interrogators will ensure that security internees are allowed adequate sleep; and that diets provide adequate food and water and cause no adverse medical or cultural effects. Where segregation is necessary. security internees must be monitored for adverse medical or psychological reactions. Should military working dogs be present during interrogations , they will be muzzled and under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety.
Doesn't sound like real "torture" was on the agenda at all
But there is proof, through photographs that people have been tortured so we all know that whatever is written down officially about conduct, there are no guarantees it will be conducted that way. In any company there are work methods that are written out to be followed but are quite often not followed for a variety of reasons. So quoting this document is not useful.
P
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 09:36:06.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 09:52:11 AM · #509 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If no one can make the determination, then I suppose the only recourse is to let ALL of the prisoners out of jail. Because according to UN Article 16 they are ALL being "tortured" - being in prison is DEGRADING, and the prison environment causes mental anguish. That makes them irritated, frustrated, and upset. How can any of us determnie just what each persons limit is? Where does irritation end and torture begin? Who makes the judgement?
Or can you condone that, but only for those who have been tried and convicted? And you GOTTA believe that every trial ends in a TRUE and JUST verdict, right? |
Oh come on! We are not discussing convicted terrorists here but people who are under suspicion.
The legal system is the best way we have got of judging if a person needs to be punished for a crime and therefore one has to accept that the trial system is more often right than wrong. Would you, as an individual, take a complaint to court for a fair judgement or would you take the law into your own hands and submit the person you believed had aggrieved you, to torture, to come to a "decision"? If you do not believe in the courts then you are saying that they cannot be used to determine who is right or wrong and we should not accept any judgement. Anarchy follows.
Don't try to move away from the discussion point of torture committed on unconvicted, possibly innocent people, with no-one answerable for their actions and no protection for the victims. Or are you saying ALL these people are terrorists?
P
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 11:35:31 AM · #510 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to gather information or question detainees if they have real evidence that they are terrorists,... |
Yes, they are. Re-read the posts from Riponlady
|
Excuse me! Where did I say that terrorists should not be interrogated in some way? |
In this thread, on 10/26/2005 at 08:06:01 PM when you said
Originally posted by Riponlady:
"Where does "irritation" end aand torture begin? Define how long a few days is? Who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is?
Sorry cannot condone this form of treatment in a civilised world. " |
I inferred from the last sentence that you cannot condone "irritation" since it cannot be clearly differentiated from "torture" without judgement, and that you feel that we cannot agree on "who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is". Please correct me if I am wrong in that inference.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Of course those people against whom there is documented proof of terrorist action should be questioned - I said it should not involve torture which is very different. |
But if we cannot agree on what constitutes "torture" how can we question them withOUT "torturing" them?
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But there is proof, through photographs that people have been tortured so we all know that whatever is written down officially about conduct, there are no guarantees it will be conducted that way. |
In that, we are in complete agreement. I have never maintained that torture had NOT been committed. Only that it was not directed by policy from the highest echelons of the Bush administration, as many have claimed.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
In any company there are work methods that are written out to be followed but are quite often not followed for a variety of reasons. So quoting this document is not useful.
P |
It is certainly NOT useful for PREVENTING abuse from occurring. Neither is a RED LIGHT useful for preventing automobiles from entering an intersection when traffic is authorized to move into that intersection from another direction. However, both ARE useful in determining what actions are officially REQUIRED ( i.e. Policy ).
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 11:36:08. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 11:47:52 AM · #511 |
A major problem for uncovering the structure of the systematic abuses of the Islamic prisoners in Gitmo, Afghanistan and all of the Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib, is that it is a black special-access operation that was approvedd by Donald Rumsfeld and designed and carried through by undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, who had no experience in intelligence gathering before he got the job. These kinds of programs are protected at all cost from being discovered by the public and so there is little documentation to be gathered by journalists to prove it.
The requirement for documentation to prove the positions and goings-on in overseas prisons reminds me of the industry I work in, healthcare. Reams of paperwork and documentation are generated by government bureaucrats, and huge amounts of resources spent, to show that work is getting done and that healthcare is being provided according to the law, yet there is extreme and intentional understaffing at the clinical bedside levels, and I can tell you first hand, that the health and well being of patients are being compromised because of it. (For discussion another time, just trying to create an analogy.) Merely looking for the documentation that shows the supposed positions of military brass is misleading and one needs to look a lot deeper.
The abuses that are going on overseas are being carried out by the CIA, military intelligence, MPs, and low level enlisted personnel. The black-SAP operation is being carried out by the CIA and MI, and the other abuses is being carried out by MPs and low level personnel, who are greatly understaffed, have not been trained for institutional prison operations and have come under attack themselves. They are frustrated and overworked being required to guard thousands of prisoners when they themselves are in small number.
The black SAP was brought over to Iraq by General Geoffrey Miller from Guantanamo to gain actionable intelligence. The problem here is that because of the horrific tactics that are being carried out the ranks of the insurgency are swelling and terrorist acts will continue to be carried out until the Coalition forces leave Iraq. Robert Fisk, journalist for The Independent, has reported that with the exception of the green zones in and around Bagdad, the rest of the country is very insecure and in chaos. The war has already been lost, it's time for an exit strategy. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:03:02 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
If no one can make the determination, then I suppose the only recourse is to let ALL of the prisoners out of jail. Because according to UN Article 16 they are ALL being "tortured" - being in prison is DEGRADING, and the prison environment causes mental anguish. That makes them irritated, frustrated, and upset. How can any of us determnie just what each persons limit is? Where does irritation end and torture begin? Who makes the judgement?
Or can you condone that, but only for those who have been tried and convicted? And you GOTTA believe that every trial ends in a TRUE and JUST verdict, right? |
Oh come on! We are not discussing convicted terrorists here but people who are under suspicion.
The legal system is the best way we have got of judging if a person needs to be punished for a crime and therefore one has to accept that the trial system is more often right than wrong. Would you, as an individual, take a complaint to court for a fair judgement or would you take the law into your own hands and submit the person you believed had aggrieved you, to torture, to come to a "decision"? If you do not believe in the courts then you are saying that they cannot be used to determine who is right or wrong and we should not accept any judgement. Anarchy follows.
Don't try to move away from the discussion point of torture committed on unconvicted, possibly innocent people, with no-one answerable for their actions and no protection for the victims. Or are you saying ALL these people are terrorists?
P |
So, are you saying that torture committed on convicted people is OK? It's only when they are unconvicted, possibly innocent people, that it is wrong? That's what it sounds like. And you say that if we do NOT accept "judgement" then anarchy follows. I'm saying that if we do NOT accept "judgement" ( of the detainees, that is ) then much worse than anarchy will follow - as in large scale death and destruction.
No, I'm not saying that all these people are terrorists. But it would seem that if they aren't, then they are emulating Judith Miller - remaining in custody because their ACTIONS lead the authorities to believe that they DO have something to hide. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 12:18:09 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
A major problem for uncovering the structure of the systematic abuses of the Islamic prisoners in Gitmo, Afghanistan and all of the Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib, is that it is a black special-access operation that was approvedd by Donald Rumsfeld and designed and carried through by undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, who had no experience in intelligence gathering before he got the job. These kinds of programs are protected at all cost from being discovered by the public and so there is little documentation to be gathered by journalists to prove it.
The requirement for documentation to prove the positions and goings-on in overseas prisons reminds me of the industry I work in, healthcare. Reams of paperwork and documentation are generated by government bureaucrats, and huge amounts of resources spent, to show that work is getting done and that healthcare is being provided according to the law, yet there is extreme and intentional understaffing at the clinical bedside levels, and I can tell you first hand, that the health and well being of patients are being compromised because of it. (For discussion another time, just trying to create an analogy.) Merely looking for the documentation that shows the supposed positions of military brass is misleading and one needs to look a lot deeper.
The abuses that are going on overseas are being carried out by the CIA, military intelligence, MPs, and low level enlisted personnel. The black-SAP operation is being carried out by the CIA and MI, and the other abuses is being carried out by MPs and low level personnel, who are greatly understaffed, have not been trained for institutional prison operations and have come under attack themselves. They are frustrated and overworked being required to guard thousands of prisoners when they themselves are in small number. |
Up to this point, I agree with you ( except for the adjective "systematic" in paragraph 1 ). Note, however, that while I agree that abuses DID and likely still ARE occurring, and, in fact, have never disputed that fact, I still maintain that it is NOT because of policy.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The black SAP was brought over to Iraq by General Geoffrey Miller from Guantanamo to gain actionable intelligence. The problem here is that because of the horrific tactics that are being carried out the ranks of the insurgency are swelling and terrorist acts will continue to be carried out until the Coalition forces leave Iraq. |
Tell that to the Indonesians. What did THEY do to deserve the bombings that have occurred there?
[suote=Olyuzi]Robert Fisk, journalist for The Independent, has reported that with the exception of the green zones in and around Bagdad, the rest of the country is very insecure and in chaos. The war has already been lost, it's time for an exit strategy. [/quote]
While I would accept a description of "very insecure" I would NOT classify it as being "in chaos". Neither would I agree that "the war has already been lost". There appears to be a greater hue and cry to withdraw troops from left leaning Americans and the American media than from the Iraqi civilian population in general ( and THEY are the ones suffering the greatest number of casualties from the terrorists in Iraq ). And, we DO have an exit strategy. The adminstration has repeatedly said that we would withdraw troops in numbers commensurate with the ability of Iraqi nationals to fully assume the functions that are being carried out by those troops, especially in regards to security. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:07:47 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For the record, I give greater credibility to scripture because to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proven that it contains false statements ... |
Fistly, I question the contention that "nothing" in the Bible has been "proved false" but even given that implausibility, you continue to require affirmative proof for things you disagree with, but need only negative evidence for positions you support. You require that I prove a statement from a soldier who witnessed torture is true, but that I prove the Gospel of Mark to be false.
Like I said, a double-standard.
Personally, I find more credibility in the (probably recorded) statement of a soldier made in 2005 than in some anonymous scraps of parchment from 500 BC. I realize that you don't, but please don't claim that your position is the more logical one -- merely because it is psychologically comfortable for you.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 13:08:22. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:10:23 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
How much money will have to disappear into the bowels of Halliburton before you'll believe there is corruption? |
Not too much. But corruption on whose part? Whenever money changes hands there is the potential for corruption. It happens all the time, and in every sector of society. Do you know people who do not report 100% of the money they receive that the IRS says is taxable? If they play the lottery and win $3.00, do they report it as income? Do they bet on sports and declare all of the money they win? If not, they are guilty of corruption. And I'll bet that you know a few folks like that. It's just a matter of scale. Frankly, I'm more concerned about appropriating 200 MILLION dollars of taxpayer money to build a bridge in Alaska from Ketchikan (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50 on a good day). That's comes to 4 MILLION dollars per resident. Now, to me, THAT's corruption. |
Interesting article on corruption today that goes to prove my point that corruption is always a potential, where finances are involved.
This UN Report ( pdf ) shows that around 2,200 companies, including corporations in France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government as part of the U.N. administered Oil-for-Food program. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:32:14 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
For the record, I give greater credibility to scripture because to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proven that it contains false statements ... |
Fistly, I question the contention that "nothing" in the Bible has been "proved false"... |
As is your prerogative
Originally posted by General:
...but even given that implausibility, you continue to require affirmative proof for things you disagree with, but need only negative evidence for positions you support. |
As is MY prerogative
Originally posted by eneralE:
You require that I prove a statement from a soldier who witnessed torture is true |
Not true. I require evidence that is credible, and that almost never occurs when the ONLY source is ONE individual. To convince ME that it is true often only requires the corrobaration of another reputable witness. By the way, I have NEVER said that torture did not occur, and, in fact, is not occurring even now. Quite the opposite. I agree that torture DID occur, and is likely occurring even now. Please review my responses to Riponlady at 10/27/2005 11:35:31 AM, and to Olyuzi at 10/27/2005 12:18:09 PM and you will see that I TRIED to make my position clear on that subject. Unfortunately, TRYING is often not enough.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...but that I prove the Gospel of Mark to be false. |
Really. Then you are to be congratulated. In response to that astounding revaltion, I am forced to restate my opinion then to say that only .0000001% of the Bible has been proven to contain false statements ( 1 false statement in 31,102 verses ( King James version )). Still a better percentage than most personal testimonies.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Like I said, a double-standard. |
Yep. You said that.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Personally, I find more credibility in the (probably recorded) statement of a soldier made in 2005 than in some anonymous scraps of parchment from 500 BC. I realize that you don't, but please don't claim that your position is the more logical one -- merely because it is psychologically comfortable for you. |
Are you saying that the "anonymous scraps of parchment from 500 BC" do not qualify as "recordings"? If so, I would call THAT a double standard?
Yes, I STILL maintain that my position is the more logical one, but NOT merely because it is psychologically comfortable for me - because the numbers are in and they weigh in favor of scripture. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:15:20 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
How much money will have to disappear into the bowels of Halliburton before you'll believe there is corruption? |
Not too much. But corruption on whose part? Whenever money changes hands there is the potential for corruption. It happens all the time, and in every sector of society. Do you know people who do not report 100% of the money they receive that the IRS says is taxable? If they play the lottery and win $3.00, do they report it as income? Do they bet on sports and declare all of the money they win? If not, they are guilty of corruption. And I'll bet that you know a few folks like that. It's just a matter of scale. Frankly, I'm more concerned about appropriating 200 MILLION dollars of taxpayer money to build a bridge in Alaska from Ketchikan (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50 on a good day). That's comes to 4 MILLION dollars per resident. Now, to me, THAT's corruption. |
Interesting article on corruption today that goes to prove my point that corruption is always a potential, where finances are involved.
This UN Report ( pdf ) shows that around 2,200 companies, including corporations in France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government as part of the U.N. administered Oil-for-Food program. |
When I posted that statement, I was thinking of this recent article regarding Halliburton and the general corrupt mismanagement of the rebuilding of Iraq after the invasion:
Money for Nothing
This article appears in The American Conservative magazine, by the way, and it also makes reference to the U.N. Oil for Food program:
"The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars."
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:45:11 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to gather information or question detainees if they have real evidence that they are terrorists,... |
Yes, they are. Re-read the posts from Riponlady
|
Excuse me! Where did I say that terrorists should not be interrogated in some way? |
In this thread, on 10/26/2005 at 08:06:01 PM when you said
Originally posted by Riponlady:
"Where does "irritation" end and torture begin? Define how long a few days is? Who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is?
Sorry cannot condone this form of treatment in a civilised world. " |
I inferred from the last sentence that you cannot condone "irritation" since it cannot be clearly differentiated from "torture" without judgement, and that you feel that we cannot agree on "who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is". Please correct me if I am wrong in that inference.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Of course those people against whom there is documented proof of terrorist action should be questioned - I said it should not involve torture which is very different. |
But if we cannot agree on what constitutes "torture" how can we question them withOUT "torturing" them?
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But there is proof, through photographs that people have been tortured so we all know that whatever is written down officially about conduct, there are no guarantees it will be conducted that way. |
In that, we are in complete agreement. I have never maintained that torture had NOT been committed. Only that it was not directed by policy from the highest echelons of the Bush administration, as many have claimed.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
In any company there are work methods that are written out to be followed but are quite often not followed for a variety of reasons. So quoting this document is not useful.
P |
It is certainly NOT useful for PREVENTING abuse from occurring. Neither is a RED LIGHT useful for preventing automobiles from entering an intersection when traffic is authorized to move into that intersection from another direction. However, both ARE useful in determining what actions are officially REQUIRED ( i.e. Policy ). |
So you are saying that all interrogation is torture? So everyone who is questioned following an incident is being tortured? In my opinion, questioning can take place in such a manner that is not torture as is demonstrated every day by the police. What has been done to the captives held by US officials is not straightforward questioning.
Whether or not the government has agreed that torture should take place, it should be doing everything it can to ensure it doesn't happen and that is what the government doesn't seem to be doing or intend to do.
You inferred from my sentence that questioning is wrong because we cannot agree on what torture is. I thought you were saying that the US government had made it clear what they considered torture and had informed us of it through the document you quoted. I beleive that questioning can take place in a humane way that would allow the person being questioned to not suffer from degrading or mentally abusive treatment.
Sorry don't understand your analogy about red lights.
You have not answered my point as to the process of law and trials.
P
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:47:50 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
How much money will have to disappear into the bowels of Halliburton before you'll believe there is corruption? |
Not too much. But corruption on whose part? Whenever money changes hands there is the potential for corruption. It happens all the time, and in every sector of society. Do you know people who do not report 100% of the money they receive that the IRS says is taxable? If they play the lottery and win $3.00, do they report it as income? Do they bet on sports and declare all of the money they win? If not, they are guilty of corruption. And I'll bet that you know a few folks like that. It's just a matter of scale. Frankly, I'm more concerned about appropriating 200 MILLION dollars of taxpayer money to build a bridge in Alaska from Ketchikan (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50 on a good day). That's comes to 4 MILLION dollars per resident. Now, to me, THAT's corruption. |
Interesting article on corruption today that goes to prove my point that corruption is always a potential, where finances are involved.
This UN Report ( pdf ) shows that around 2,200 companies, including corporations in France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government as part of the U.N. administered Oil-for-Food program. |
When I posted that statement, I was thinking of this recent article regarding Halliburton and the general corrupt mismanagement of the rebuilding of Iraq after the invasion:
Money for Nothing
This article appears in The American Conservative magazine, by the way, and it also makes reference to the U.N. Oil for Food program:
"The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." |
Oh, I never doubted that corruption existed within Halliburton. There is plenty of evidence that it does. My response was based on my belief ( naive though you may think it to be ) that it is not a corporate policy to engage in corruptive practices - with one exception - that being something referred to generally as the CODB, Cost of Doing Business. In many countries, especially where government permits are REQUIRED and stiff PENALTIES imposed for conducting business without such permits, the issuing authorities EXPECT ( though in reality they demand ) payments or other "favors" before they will take any action on the permitting process. Most companies consider such payments, even though we would consider them to "graft" "bribes" or what have you, the Cost of Doing Business. In fact, there are line items in most budgets to cover such expenditures.
In smaller companies, the CODB may be as simple as inviting the person out to dinner, or treating them to a round of golf. It's really just a matter of scale. At the scale of Halliburton, it can be quite large. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:54:17 PM · #520 |
| So commiting a crime is OK as long as it can be itemized as a "cost of doing business" ... I'm sure the Attorney General and the FBI will be relieved and happy to pass along their workload to the IRS -- gives them more time to peruse library records. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 04:56:45 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
If no one can make the determination, then I suppose the only recourse is to let ALL of the prisoners out of jail. Because according to UN Article 16 they are ALL being "tortured" - being in prison is DEGRADING, and the prison environment causes mental anguish. That makes them irritated, frustrated, and upset. How can any of us determnie just what each persons limit is? Where does irritation end and torture begin? Who makes the judgement?
Or can you condone that, but only for those who have been tried and convicted? And you GOTTA believe that every trial ends in a TRUE and JUST verdict, right? |
Oh come on! We are not discussing convicted terrorists here but people who are under suspicion.
The legal system is the best way we have got of judging if a person needs to be punished for a crime and therefore one has to accept that the trial system is more often right than wrong. Would you, as an individual, take a complaint to court for a fair judgement or would you take the law into your own hands and submit the person you believed had aggrieved you, to torture, to come to a "decision"? If you do not believe in the courts then you are saying that they cannot be used to determine who is right or wrong and we should not accept any judgement. Anarchy follows.
Don't try to move away from the discussion point of torture committed on unconvicted, possibly innocent people, with no-one answerable for their actions and no protection for the victims. Or are you saying ALL these people are terrorists?
P |
So, are you saying that torture committed on convicted people is OK? It's only when they are unconvicted, possibly innocent people, that it is wrong? That's what it sounds like. And you say that if we do NOT accept "judgement" then anarchy follows. I'm saying that if we do NOT accept "judgement" ( of the detainees, that is ) then much worse than anarchy will follow - as in large scale death and destruction.
No, I'm not saying that all these people are terrorists. But it would seem that if they aren't, then they are emulating Judith Miller - remaining in custody because their ACTIONS lead the authorities to believe that they DO have something to hide. |
I didn't say that torture on convicted people is right - you are putting words in to my mouth.
Perhaps the results of anarchy are large scale death and destruction and on a much more localised area than at present.
What actions are these detainees taking that lead the authorities to believe they are terrorists while they are being illegally imprisoned for years? How can they prove they are innocent without due legal processes?
Put them on trial - let the world know what evidence there is against them and let them be judged by the law. This would be one way of stopping all the bad feelings that the whole situation is causing. But the US government does not seem to want to be open about this.
P
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 05:00:34 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So commiting a crime is OK as long as it can be itemized as a "cost of doing business" ... I'm sure the Attorney General and the FBI will be relieved and happy to pass along their workload to the IRS -- gives them more time to peruse library records. |
It that a rhetorical question, merely posed to beguile the uninformed? or would you really like me to respond? |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 05:13:36 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So commiting a crime is OK as long as it can be itemized as a "cost of doing business" ... I'm sure the Attorney General and the FBI will be relieved and happy to pass along their workload to the IRS -- gives them more time to peruse library records. |
It that a rhetorical question, merely posed to beguile the uninformed? or would you really like me to respond? |
Probably about a 70/30 split for the former ... perhaps instead you could comment on the number of TCN (Third-Country Nationals) carrying ID badges issued by KRB which list their country of origin as being ones which prohibit employment in Iraq. "Human trafficking" and "indentured bondage" were the terms I heard being used. I believe the original series of reports is in the Chicago Sun-Times, although I just heard part of a radio interview summarizing the situation. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 05:31:15 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
So you are saying that all interrogation is torture? So everyone who is questioned following an incident is being tortured? |
Excuse me, but aren't you the same person who just accused ME of trying to put words into YOUR mouth? If so, what do you call the above?
No, I am not saying that all interrogation is torture. I'm saying that according to UN CAT Articles 1 and 16 all interrogation *could* be classified as torture, since all interrogation will make the one being interrogated feel threatened, intimidated, uncomfortable, degraded, etc - all of which *can* be classified as torture under UN CAT 1/16.
Obviously, I do not agree with that possible assesment.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
In my opinion, questioning can take place in such a manner that is not torture as is demonstrated every day by the police. What has been done to the captives held by US officials is not straightforward questioning. |
Having been subjected to interrogation by the police myself, I can tell you that the actions "demonstrated" by the police in conducting my interrogation at least closely followed those outlined in the "techniques" memo I posted a link to. I did not consider it "torture" myself, but it seems that you think that the techniques outlined in the memo are "torture". But then you say that police interrogation techniques are NOT torture, leaving me to question just where you draw the line.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Whether or not the government has agreed that torture should take place, it should be doing everything it can to ensure it doesn't happen and that is what the government doesn't seem to be doing or intend to do. |
So the trials and convictions that have already taken place don't persuade you that the government is doing anything? I thought they were fairly convincing, myself.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You inferred from my sentence that questioning is wrong because we cannot agree on what torture is. I thought you were saying that the US government had made it clear what they considered torture and had informed us of it through the document you quoted. I beleive that questioning can take place in a humane way that would allow the person being questioned to not suffer from degrading or mentally abusive treatment. |
I don't think that any interrogation whose goal is to obtain information that someone does NOT want to reveal will absolutely require that they suffer some degradation or mental anguish. I do agree that it doesn't have to be "abusive". But again, I harken back to the starting point - UN CAT Article 1/16 which effectively removes the "abusive" qualifier from the level required to be considered "torture".
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Sorry don't understand your analogy about red lights. |
I'm saying that official policy cannot prevent people from engaging in torture. Not even enforcement of those policies can prevent it. The qualifications of UN CAT 1/16 could only be met by limiting interrogations to non-threating emails.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You have not answered my point as to the process of law and trials.
P |
I believe in the law, and in trials, and agree that the majority of those convicted are judged fairly. I DO NOT, however agree with mandatory sentencing, 3-strikes laws, zero-tolerance policies, etc. etc., and I would strongly support the establishment of a local, civilian review board for all non-jury sentencing. The disparity in sentencing by individual judges ( not so much by juries, or even by judicial panels ) is outrageous. A year's probation for someone who pleads guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, and 15 years to someone who sold one rock of crack cocaine? I call that a pretty outrageous disparity.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 17:57:08. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 05:51:03 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm saying that official policy cannot prevent people from engaging in torture. |
So you are saying that US military and intelligence service personnel would disobey a direct order from their commander-in-chief.
How comforting to know they're so well-disciplined ...
On the other hand, the absence of an order to not engage in torture could rightfully be determined to be permission if not a direction.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 17:52:41. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 01:07:55 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 01:07:55 AM EDT.
|
